MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W628579179 · doi:10.14288/1.0087839

The interaction between context and technology during information systems development (ISD) : action research investigations in two health settings

2009· book· en· W628579179 sur OpenAlexaff
Mike Chiasson

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typebook
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueInformation Systems Theories and Implementation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)Action (physics)Computer scienceKnowledge managementPsychologyGeographyPhysics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Software development and implementation failure is perceived by developers and users as a serious problem. Of every six new software development projects, 2 are abandoned, the average project lasts 50% longer than expected, and 75% of large systems are "operating failures" that are rejected or perform poorly. Design failure contributes to the productivity paradox, where increased investment in information technology (IT) has not correlated with improvements in productivity. Many IS researchers state that further research examining the interaction between technology and context during information system development (ISD) is required. This current study is motivated by these calls for research. The marrying of information systems and health research also raises a second motivation. The deployment and diffusion of IT can contribute to the effective utilization of health resources. Another motivation of the thesis is to explore the effect of information systems on disease prevention, and provide an opportunity to develop and diffuse IT tools that promote health. To address these two motivations, two case studies of ISD in two health studies are described. The first case study involved the initiation and development of an electronic patient record in two outpatient clinics specializing in heart disease prevention and rehabilitation (SoftHeart). The second case study involved the development of a windows-based multimedia software that assists the planning of breast cancer educational and policy programs in communities. The first case study covered four years (Summer of 1992 to Spring of 1996) and the second case covered 1 year (Spring of 1995 to Spring of 1996). The purpose of the thesis is to generate hypotheses for future research in ISD. Both studies employed an "action research" approach where the researcher was directly involved with software design and programming. Data from interviews, meeting minutes, field notes, design and programming notes, and other documentation were collected from both studies and triangulated to provide valid interpretations. Important and illustrative technology-context events are extracted from the cases to uncover processes between technology and context during stages of development. Processes are compared with four theories linking technology and context: technological imperative and organizational imperative (unidirectional), and emergent perspective and social technology (bi-directional). These processes are then combined to reach tentative conclusions about the ISD process. Key findings indicate an interplay between a small number unidirectional processes (organizational and technology imperative) and a large number of bi-directional theories (social technology and emergence). Overall, the emergent perspective described or participated in describing a majority of the processes, given the developer's perspective, extraction and interpretation of these key processes. In both cases, the ISD trajectory was best described as emergent. The result of within case and cross-case analysis is a model integrating the four technology-context theories depending on stakeholder agreement and the adaptability of technology during development and use. Dynamics and change in task, technology, and stakeholder configurations are explained by the deliberate or accidental interaction of new and old stakeholders, technology, ideas, agreements and/or tasks over time. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,960
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,309
Écart entre enseignants0,272 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationTravaux en français237 207